Judging by how high you jumped in Post #168 I'd say everybody would agree I just kicked a field goal.
Torture in Iraq
- Thread starter 6thGen
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Judging by how high you jumped in Post #168 I'd say everybody would agree I just kicked a field goal.
Of course you are changing the subject. You are the political equivalent of a Wack-a-Mole.
Anytime anyone contradicts your point you immediately jump ship and change the subject; usually by starting a totally new thread with some inflamatory title.
Aren't you behind schedule? You have been both condradicted and made to look silly, yet again- this is historically the time you throw another nutty thread out.
Oh very well, I'll answer in the spirit of quid pro quo:
The last neo-con I met was an average height fellow, with dark hair and skin, and somewhat stocky. Oh yes, and he had a nasty habit of unilaterally trying to bend reality to his pre-determined view of the world.
:scratch:
Yes, I still believe you are paid troll sitting in a hot room in an office that has a shingle that says Dr. Prop-a-gander. You and a few others I found while troll hunting.
Here's an excerpt of your sewage, excuse me, spewage of the scripts it appears you trolls are handed out:
Thread started by Krumharn, also known as Krummy (who'd of thought)
The Case for Bombing Iraq
Krummy:
Sooner or later, we are going to have to face up to the threat posed by Iran. We might as well start now.
Here's an interesting discussion about why we may ultimately have to get muscular with the mullahs.
blah, blah....................
Krummy: So here's the scenario: Do we permit a nuclear conflict to erupt in between Israel and Iran? Or do we go in earlier and destroy their nuclear capacity? blah, blah
Krummy:
Here's a pretty good example of what these animals have in store for us.
http://tinyurl.com/2gof9q
Hmmm........:scratch: sounds all vaguely familiar and I displayed the nicest thread. I can go on and on with this.
Then the best part of all this is the use of accomplices. Good guy, bad guy to keep a thread going.
The constant use of questions in a thread, changing subjects, inserting anti-islam, pro-left propaganda, and of course the use of derogatory language especially when someone kicks their butt around. (My favorite part, thanks 30gAy 
)
and here's my new definition of neo-con.
Neo obviously for new, and con, well that just speaks for itself at face value trollman, so neo-con has several definitions and in your case it's the new Bush con, paid internet trolling.
and BTW- Jdarg is a woman, a very attractive well spoken one, with over 8K posts, so if you bothered to look outside the politics forum, you would have known that, since you've been registered here for what? since 05? :roll: But, you're just here to read about Sowal and look at the pretty pictures?
Yes, I still believe you are paid troll sitting in a hot room in an office that has a shingle that says Dr. Prop-a-gander. You and a few others I found while troll hunting.
Here's an excerpt of your sewage, excuse me, spewage of the scripts it appears you trolls are handed out:
Thread started by Krumharn, also known as Krummy (who'd of thought)
The Case for Bombing Iraq
Krummy:
Sooner or later, we are going to have to face up to the threat posed by Iran. We might as well start now.
Here's an interesting discussion about why we may ultimately have to get muscular with the mullahs.
blah, blah....................
Krummy: So here's the scenario: Do we permit a nuclear conflict to erupt in between Israel and Iran? Or do we go in earlier and destroy their nuclear capacity? blah, blah
Krummy:
Here's a pretty good example of what these animals have in store for us.
http://tinyurl.com/2gof9q
Hmmm........:scratch: sounds all vaguely familiar and I displayed the nicest thread. I can go on and on with this.
Then the best part of all this is the use of accomplices. Good guy, bad guy to keep a thread going.
The constant use of questions in a thread, changing subjects, inserting anti-islam, pro-left propaganda, and of course the use of derogatory language especially when someone kicks their butt around. (My favorite part, thanks 30gAy ) and here's my new definition of neo-con.
Neo obviously for new, and con, well that just speaks for itself at face value trollman, so neo-con has several definitions and in your case it's the new Bush con, paid internet trolling.
and BTW- Jdarg is a woman, a very attractive well spoken one, with over 8K posts, so if you bothered to look outside the politics forum, you would have known that, since you've been registered here for what? since 05? :roll: But, you're just here to read about Sowal and look at the pretty pictures?
Last edited:
6thGenTroll,
If you are a paid plant (which seems feasible to me), they are not getting their moneys worth! There have been so many well-informed responses and rebuttals that it would appear you might be in line for a pink slip.
But, I have learned much from reading this thread. Haven't changed my mind on how I feel about the Iraq mess, but have had it greatly reinforced through the learned folks on this board. You all rock!
.
Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq and the current President, it's pretty delusional to believe that the administration lacked the "cultural understanding" of foreign affairs to the degree apparently possessed by some on this board. Bush's father was at various times the director of the CIA, ambassador to the UN and a top liason between the US and China. I seriously doubt elder and younger didn't and don't discuss in detail foreign affairs. Bush has been surrounded by statesmen like Baker, Zoellick, Powell, Gates, Rice and others since before his first election. When he first came to office, Bush was disinclined towards US military and police involvement overseas and was critical of US involvement in Bosnia. 9-11 clearly changed Bush's view of the world. A lot of you guys are acting like Iraq was the picture of peace and tranquility before under Hussein. I doubt you would find many in the shia or kurdish community who would agree (I wonder if the little Kurdish community that got mustard gassed agrees that Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction). Despite what has been suggested, Iraq was no Lebanon which before the civil war had been a beacon of light for the middle east, progressive and well educated. It is what the US is trying to cultivate there once again. Some have said this discussion has reaffirmed their beliefs. What would change those beliefs? Many cry over the half million slaughtered in Darfur and want the US to do more there. Is an all out slaughter of even greater numbers between shia, sunni and kurds in Iraq that may destabilize Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and others with us watching from the supposed safety of the homeland ok?
So are you saying I change the subject faster than your father at a cocktail party when the subject of sons comes up?